Washington County salary commission finalizes report; recommends 2026 increase tied to MAPS, will present to county board

The Washington County Salary Commission met June 20 and finalized edits to its draft report, approved minutes by voice vote and agreed on several substantive recommendations including that any 2026 salary increase for county commissioners should match the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) awarded to the county’s management, administrative and professional personnel system (MAPS).

The commission approved the minutes of its prior meeting by voice vote; Chair Vasil Hazin announced, “Motion has been approved with 3–0.” The group then worked line-by-line through the draft report, accepting wording, capitalization and structural edits and clarifying which pay groups and comparators the recommendation should reference.

Why it matters: the commission’s report will be submitted to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners, which takes the formal action on elected-official pay. The commission’s decision to tie the 2026 adjustment to the MAPS COLA and to exclude internal comparators shapes the Board’s reference points when it considers salary changes.

Key decisions and specifics - COLA linkage: After discussion about differences among employee groups, commissioners agreed that the recommendation for 2026 should be explicit: the commissioner pay increase over 2025 should “match the cost-of-living adjustment for county management, administrative, and professional personnel.” Commissioners asked staff to use the county’s MAPS designation as the referenced group to avoid ambiguity. - Internal comparators: The commission “unanimously decided to not use the internal comparators” as the primary basis for county board salary comparisons and removed language that suggested internal employee categories were the best comparison for elected-official pay. - External comparators: The commission discussed which jurisdictions to include in external comparisons and recorded a recommendation to include the City of Portland among the external comparators used in the report.

Process, evidence and edits Commissioners spent substantial time on wording and organization (terminology, capitalization and appendix labeling) to ensure the document reads clearly for the public and the county board. They clarified that the referenced county employee group is the “management, administrative and professional personnel system” (MAPS) and adjusted the report to refer to MAPS consistently. Commissioners also discussed the role of elected-official compensation relative to public service and removed language that could be read as editorial rather than descriptive.

Operational items and next steps The commission agreed to convert the edited document to PDF and send it to county staff for inclusion in the Board packet. Kevin (staff) confirmed he would receive the PDF and prepare a cover page and the agenda packet; he also said the Board presentation will be streamed on multiple platforms (YouTube, iAgenda/Zoom and local cable). Commissioners planned a short presentation for the Board — approximately 8–10 minutes — covering the recommendation first and the fuller report only as needed, and they discussed scheduling a short practice run beforehand.

Discussion points that informed the report Commissioners and staff noted several process lessons for future salary commissions: start earlier to allow more research time; use paid, public and geographic cost-of-living data where possible; host some work on a shared county platform (rather than personal cloud drives) so multiple people can edit simultaneously; allow longer interview slots (20–30 minutes) with candidates or subject experts; and include an HR professional or someone with HR experience on the commission when possible to advise on technical compensation issues. Commissioners also recorded that recorded interviews and staff orientation were helpful for members less familiar with county operations.

Public comment and adjournment There were no public comments. After confirming staff had the PDF and that the report and presentation logistics were set, Chair Vasil Hazin closed the meeting: “Since we have covered all the agenda topics, there’s no new agenda. I would like to call this meeting done.”

What’s next: staff will add the commission’s final report and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners packet, and the commission will present its recommendation at the next County Board meeting, which commissioners said will be held in the evening and streamed publicly.